
As elicited before the Congressional Commission ; 


ALSO, 


A Review of Senator Sargent’s Report; 


WITH 


An 


Appendix, 



Concerning a Wide-spread Conspiracy against the Chinese; 


-Respectfully Dedicated to the Friends of 
Right, Justice and Humanity, 


By PROFESSOR AUGUSTUS BAYRES, 

Author of the Pamphlet entitled, “The Other Side of the Chinese Qu 



San Francisco. 

A. F. Woolbridge, Printer, 434 California Street. 

1877. 

















PART I. 

✓ 

ANTI-CHINESE TESTIMONY SELF-REFUTED. 


The Commission of Inquiry into 
the Chinese question appointed by 
Congress last year, was composed 
of the following members: Senators, 
Morton of Indiana, chairman of the 
Commission, Sargent of California 
and Cooper of Tennessee. Kepre- 
sentatives, Meade of New York, 
Wilson of Iowa, and Piper of Cali¬ 
fornia. All of these with the ex¬ 
ception of .Representative Wilson, 
took part in the investigations held 
in October and November 1876, in 
the Palace Hotel in San Francisco. 
The Anti-Chinese side was main¬ 
tained by Hon. Frank M. Pixley, 
and the Pro-Chinese by Messrs. Bee 
and Brooks of San Francisco. 

Senator Morton proposed the 
following interrogatory relative to 
the subject of investigation. 

1. How many Chinese are there 
in this country ? 

2. What is their moral and physi¬ 
cal condition ? 

3. Do they come here voluntarily, 
and by what means do they get here? 

4. For what purpose do they come; 
with the intention of remaining and 
making the United States their 
home, or returning to China when 
they have acquired a competence ? 

5. Do they become attached to 
our institutions and reconciled to 
live and die here ? 

6. What kind of labor do they 
perform ? 

7. What is their character as la¬ 
borers ? 

8. Do they learn trades and work 
in factories ? 


9. What rate of wages do they 
receive ? 

10. How does their employment 
effect white labor ? 

11. Do they prevent the immigra¬ 
tion of white labor to this coast 
from Europe and from the Eastern 
States ? 

12. What is the condition of their 
health and their habits of cleanli¬ 
ness and sanitary regulations ? 

13. From what parts of China do 
they come ? 

14. Do any sail directly from 
Chinese ports, or do they all come 
by way of Hongkong ? 

15. In what way do they live in 
this city ? 

16. How does their residence in 
localities affect the price of property? 

17. How many have families ? 

18. How many Chinese women 
are there in this country, and what 
is their condition and character ? 
Are they free, or are they bought 
and sold as slaves ? 

19. How many Chinese companies 
are there, and how are they organ¬ 
ized ? 

20. Are they organized to make 
money, and in what way do they 
make it, or are they relief or benevo¬ 
lent associations ? 

21. What interest do the Chinese 
take in the politics or institutions of 
the country, and how many of them 
have become citizens of the United 
States ? 

22. What is the population of 
China as far as can be ascertained, 
and the general condition, manners, 





V 


\ 


4 


customs and institutions ot the 
people ? 

23. What is their religion, and 
what progress have the missionaries 
made in their conversion to Chris¬ 
tianity ? 

24. What is their education and 
their character in keeping and 
making contracts ? 

25. The condition of commerce 
between the United States and China; 
how it has been or may be affected 
by Chinese immigration ? 

26. What power has a State to 
prevent the introduction of prosti¬ 
tutes or vagrants from foreign ports? 


TESTIMONY OF HON. FRANK M’COPPIN 

“ China contains 400,000,000peopte, 
who may come in time and overcome 
us” 

In making this assertion Senator 
MeCoppin did not think it necessary 
to explain how this terrible calamhy 
might come to pass. However he 
might have remembered that such 
fantastical predictions had more 
than once been silenced by Califor¬ 
nia journals. Why should the Hon¬ 
orable Senator then sound again 
this false alarm in the hearing of 
the Commission ? 

Here is how the 'Alta California as 
early as June 8, 1873, had replied to 
the Chronicle on this score. 

“ It may do to make this style of 
argument for the purposes of politi¬ 
cal agitation, and to make converts 
of those who do not reason for 
themselves, but it is not the kind of 
showing on which thinking men 
form opinions, nor nations make or 
modify treaties. To show how’ 
senseless and groundless are such 
predictions, and how false such 
statements, we have been to the 
trouble to collect reliable statistics 
concerning the arrivals and depart¬ 
ures of Chinamen for the past 


twenty years, or from January 1, 

1853, to the end of the first quarter 
of 1873.” 

The Alta then gives the statistics 
obtained from the records of the 
Custom House in this city, and sums 
up the total as follows : 

Arrivals, 135,399 ; Departures, 

61,909 ; Net gain, 76,076 ; Net loss, 

1,586. 

Showing a total gain in those 
twenty and a quarter years of 
74,490, or an average of 3,678 per 
annum. The deaths are estimated 
by the best authorities on the subject 
as amounting in the aggregate to 
not less than 2,500, which being 
deducted leaves the entire present 
Chinese population of the State 
62,500, or an average increase of 
3,086 per annum. The white popu¬ 
lation increases by immigration by 
land and sea about 25,000 annually, 
and by births as much more, so the 
prospect of our being converted into 
a tributary colony of China is not 
very encouraging. At the present 
rate of Chinese increase, to find the 
number enlarged to one million, not 
millions, wfill require just 324 years, 
by which time all our pjresent 
politicians will have gone up Salt 
.River, and our sensation writers 
and editors will have become atten¬ 
uated material for some appropriate 
re-issue in Nature’s laboratory, pos- 
sibty to re-appear on earth in 
Chinese personality.” 

“ Only 500 to 600 females are 
here, and they are prostitutes.” 

This estimate, if true, would not 
show a very imminent danger of 
an increase of Chinese population, 

“ which may overcome us.” More¬ 
over, the statement differs from that 
of Alfred Clark, clerk of police, 
and anti-Chinese witness, who reck¬ 
oned the Chinese prostitutes at 
about 1000. Langley’s Directory, J 


i 







5 


for 1877—a very good authority 
— places the entire number of 
Chinese women, married and un¬ 
married, in San Francisco at 1,200, 
and of children at 1,300, which 
proves, first, that not all the Chi¬ 
nese women here are prostitutes ; 
second, that McCoppin and Clark’s 
estimates are wrong. 

HON. FRANK M. PIXLEY, THE ANTI- 
CHINESE ATTORNEY. 

“ Prostitution is a legitimate pro¬ 
fession among the Chinese.” This 
accusation was refuted by ex Gov¬ 
ernor Low, formerlv our minister 
to China, who testified “that pros¬ 
titution is very degrading there, 
is severely punished, and deprives 
of collegiate honors other members 
of the family.” 

“The Chinese have no desire to 
become citizens.” It is surprising 
that Mr. Pixley should not know 
that Chinese are excluded from cit¬ 
izenship both by treaty and by law. 
It is, therefore, idle for them to 
desire a thing which they cannot 
obtain. 

“They follow lighter avocations, 
learn our lighter industries.” Are 
woolen manufactures and works by 
machinery light avocations and in¬ 
dustries ? Alexander Badlam, as¬ 
sessor, testified that 2,000 Chinamen 
are boot and shoemakers ; 700 of 
them are employed in woolen mills, 
100 in shirt making, 1,000 in slipper 
making, etc. Are these light in¬ 
dustries ? 

Mr. Pixley, however, while ar¬ 
raigning the Chinese, did not fail 
to pay a merited tribute to their 
quick faculty of learning our in¬ 
dustries, and their excellent capa¬ 
city as farm laborers, railway buil 
ders, levee constructors and domes 
tic servants, thus acknowledging 


that they have rendered and are 
rendering a great benefit to our 
State. The question seems natural 
here, if such are the results the 
Chinese have brought upon the 
material interests of California, 
why does Mr. Pixley complain of 
them ? Or is it a bad cause that 
which produces a good effect ? 

“The Chinese buy no property, 
pay no taxes, pay little or no rent.” 
Even if the statistics of assessor 
Badlam be received as correct, this 
statement is untrue, because he at¬ 
tested that “thereal estate assessed 
to the Chinese falls short of $100,- 
000, and their personal property 
will amount to $500,000.” 

“ We have no municipal control 
over Chinese evils.” as, for instance, 
that they are overcrowded in six 
or seven blocks, that they “ live in 
filth, squalor and vice.” But Alfred 
Clarke, clerk of the chief of police, 
testified that the offenses for which 
the Chinese are principally arrested 
are violation of the cubic air ordi¬ 
nance, prostitution, and gambling ; 
and Mayor Bryant avowed that the 
condition of Chinatown seems to 
have improved of late, that the 
ordinances against gambling and 
prostitution have been euforced, 
though they have encountered great 
difficulty.” This would seem to 
indicate that we have some munic¬ 
ipal control over those evils, and if 
we haven’t, whose fault is it ? Sure¬ 
ly of the civil authorities themselves 
who having the power do not 
make use of it. 

“ The Chinese have no souls ; if 
they had, they are not worth sav¬ 
ing.” Mr. Pixley may have thought 
this expression a very good joke, 
but he will soon find that the moral 
and Christian sentiment of the 

/ 





6 


State and Nation heartily abhors 
and condemns it. 

EX-MINISTER F. F. LOW 

Spoke of the Chinese as though 
they were a barbarous or semi- 
barbarous nation, and remarked 
that “ when any civilized govern¬ 
ment enters into a treaty with any 
barbarous or semi-barbarous nation 
an anamalous state of affairs is 
produced.” This was a disparaging 
insinuation against the Chinese, 
which was not sustained by Minis¬ 
ter Low’s own avowal of Chinese 
civilization, made in a lecture 
delivered before the University of 
California, March 13, 1874, on his 
“ experience as United States min¬ 
ister with the Chinese.” Said Mr. 
Low on that occasion : 

“ China consists of eighteen prov¬ 
inces, under the control of provin¬ 
cial officers, vested with legislative 
and judicial powers, all under the 
control of the general government,at 
whose head is the emperor,God’s vice 
gerent, according to their belief. 
Each province must maintain order 
in its own territory, without assist¬ 
ance from any other. The offices 
are generally occupied by the best 
educated, without regard to rank. 
The empire owes its stability to the 
system of civil service maintained 
by it for thousands of years. 
Education is secured to the greatest 
number by a system unsurpassed by 
any other country.” 

Now, is a nation that has brought 
popular education to such a high 
state of perfection a barbarous, 
semi-barbarous, ora civilized nation? 
If by general consent ignorance is 
the mother of barbarism, surely in¬ 
telligence is the parent of civiliza¬ 
tion. It is an undisputed fact that 
the percentage of persons who do 
not know the arts of writing, read¬ 


ing and arithmetic is less among the 
Chinese than among several other 
foreign nationalities in our midst. 

Ex-Minister Low avowed that 
“looking at the subject of Chinese 
labor from the standpoint of dollars 
and cents, it has been of great ser¬ 
vice to the State,” for “ we have not 
a surplus of white labor, and with¬ 
out the Chinese the railroad could 
not be built. We look to China 
and India as a market for our 
silver.” 

Now, are not these commercial 
advantages very good reasons for 
leaving unrestricted Chinese immi¬ 
gration ? If “a strong laborer has 
no trouble in getting employment 
in California,” as Low asserts, how 
is “ white immigration from the 
East discouraged by the Chinese 
influx?” .Again, “IfChinese labor 
is not cheap herein comparison with 
labor in the East,” how has it “a ten¬ 
dency to degrade white labor by 
its cheapness,” as Low asserts ? 

T. H. KING. 

“ China men emigrate under writ¬ 
ten labor contracts, which inform 
the reader that the parents of the 
coolie have agreed to sell his labor.” 

It is very strange that Mr. Ling 
was unable to produce one single 
written contract of this kind, not¬ 
withstanding there are one hundred 
and fifty thousand Chinese residents 
in and out of the State. It is still 
more singular that Mr. King speaks 
from observation, at the same time 
that he avows that “ he does not 
understand the Chinese language.” 
His testimony entirely conflicts 
even with Frank Pixley’s testimony, 
who frankly declared “ the China¬ 
men come here voluntarilv.” And 

4 / 

if “ the violation of these contracts 
is often met with punishment and 
assassination,” as King asserted, 



7 


why did he not cite one single 
instance of the kind, since they are 
so frequent, and the number of sueh 
contracts amounts to tens and hun¬ 
dreds of thousands ? 

DR. MEARS, THE HEALTH OFFICER. 

“ The Chinese conceal their cases . 
of small-pox by every device they 
can find.” This language seems to 
indicate that the small pox is preva¬ 
lent among the Chinese. The 
Doctor adds : “ The small-pox or¬ 
iginated with the Chinese on the 
19th of May last.” Dr. Stout, a 
member of the State Board of Health 
contradicted this statement, sajung ^ 
that “ he did not think the Chinese 
were responsible for the introduc¬ 
tion of the small-pox ; he thought 
it arrived here from Southern Cali¬ 
fornia.” But, pray Dr. Mears, how 
can the small-pox prevail among 
the Chinese since yourself acknowl¬ 
edge that “ they are generally free 
from disease, because they live in a 
continual atmosphere of smoke, and 
also because by their system of 
inoculation they are better pro¬ 
tected than any other people in the 
world !” 

ALFRED CLARKE, CLERK OF THE CHIEF 
OF POLICE. 

“ Prostitution, violation of the 
cubic air ordinance and gambling 
are the principal offences for which 
arrests are made among the Chinese.” 
Considering the endless catalogue of 
crimes for which arrests are made 
among people of other nationalities, 
this evidence by an anti-Chinese 
officer of police is the best proof, if 
true, of Chinese morality and obe¬ 
dience to law. 

“The cubic air law excepts from 
its provisions prisons, hospitals and 
asylums.” Why so ? If the object 
of the law is the public health, why 


should prisons, hospitals and asy¬ 
lums be excluded from its benefits ? 
Is the health of white men and 
women in those institutions less 
valuable than that of the Chinese, 
or are our Supervisors more zealous 
for the latter than the former ? 

CHIEF OF POLICE ELLIS. 

“ The Chinese population is 30,000; 
white population, 240,000. The 
number of arrests from July 1,1875, 
to June 30, 1876, were : whites, 
17,999 ; Chinese, 2,117.” This 
would indicate that the number of 
Chinese arrests during that period 
was little over one-ninth of the 
entire number, notwithstanding the 
Chinese population was then one 
eighth of the entire city. When it 
is considered that a large number of 
arrests among that class of people 
are made for violating the cubic air 
ordinance, it would seem that Chief 
of Police Ellis, like his clerk Clarke, 
had turned pro-Chinese evidence. 

E. B. WHEELAND, COMMISSIONER OF IM¬ 
MIGRATION. 

“ Every emigrant is examined (by 
the U. S. Consul) before leaving 
China, and it anything is the matter 
he is rejected.” As labor contracts 
made with immigrants before their 
arrival in this country are prohibited 
by law of C ongress, and lewd 
women are likewise excluded by 
law, this admission by Commissioner 
Wheeland effectively repels the 
double charge made by the anti¬ 
coolies respecting the servile char¬ 
acter of the men and the lewd 
character of the women in general. 

MAYOR BRYANT. 

“ Since I have been Mayor there 
has not been to my knowledge any 
outbreak against the Chinese.” It 
is not very clear what his Honor 
means by any outbreak against the 




I 


8 


Chinese. Perhaps he means that 
no portion of Chinatown has been 
blown up or burned down, or that 
no riot lias happened similar to the 
Hamburg massacre. Such tragic 
events on a grand scale could not 
of certainty have escaped his vigi¬ 
lance. But attacking Chinamen in 
scores in the streets after landing, 
cutting one or tivo of them, stoning 
three or four, bombarding wdtli 
cobble-stones Chinamen’s wash¬ 
houses, are such small matters that 
it must not surprise anybody if they 
have never reached his Honor’s ears. 
However, these little occurrences 
are sometimes recorded in the city 
journals ; hence the question is 
whether his Honor ever reads them? 

Here is a list of outrages com¬ 
mitted about the time the Congres¬ 
sional inquiry w T as held in this city 
as reported in the San Francisco 
Chronicle. 

“October 1st, Ah Choy shot and 
killed at the corner of Dupont and 
Washington streets by an unknown 
man. Two men arrested on sus¬ 
picion, but subsequently released. 
October 8th, a Chinese wash-house 
on Mission street, near Eleventh, 
bombarded with stones. October 
9th, Chinese match factory at cor¬ 
ner of Twentieth and Harrison 
streets attacked by hoodlums ; no 
arrests. October 12th, a Chinaman 
mortally stabbed on Sacramento 
street, near Dupont. Same date, a 
China boy assaulted, knocked down 
and cruelly beaten bj 7 hoodlums on 
Merchant street, in broad daylight; 
no arrests. November 5th, a China¬ 
man knocked down and beaten 
senseless at corner of Bush and 
Dupont streets ; no arrests.” 

“ It has been very hard to enforce 
our ordinances against gambling or 
prostitution by the Chinese, though 


the latter is not as bad as formerly.” 
The question is here pertinent, most 
honorable Mayor, wdiy is white 
prostitution carried on defiantly on 
a large scale, in the most populous 
thoroughfares under your eyes ? Is 
it because it is very hard to enforce 
our ordinance against them, too? 
Surely it cannot be harder now than 
it was under Mayor Otis’ adminis¬ 
tration, w r ho, however, succeeded in 
a great measure to check the evil. 
But you affirm that “ Chinese pros¬ 
titution is not so bad now as form¬ 
erly,” and your police officers have 
stated before the Congressional 
Commission that by frequent raids 
on Chinese ill-fame houses, they 
have pretty much stopped the evil 
practice. Why is it then, honorable 
Mayor, that the same course is not 
pursued against white as well as 
against Chinese prostitutes, since 
3 7 ou have displayed such commenda¬ 
ble zeal against the latter and have 
saintly declared that “ prostitution 
is a deadly sin ?” Pray answer. 

POLICE JUDGE LOUDERBACK. 

“ The Chinese have no idea at all 
of the sanctity of an oath, * * 

but among their lies it can plainly 
be seen that they have some res¬ 
pect for an oath.” These assertions 
seem slightly inconsistent, Judge. 
Attorney H. K. W. Clarke testified, 
I have a personal knowledge of 
the veracity of the Chinese.” 

SUPERVISOR GIBBS. 

“The short hair ordinance (in 
regard to prisoners) is an equal dis¬ 
grace to hoodlums as to the Chinese; 
hence it was not framed to strike 
the Chinese any more than the 
hoodlums.” It is really news to 
the people of the city, and perhaps 
to the hoodlums themselves, that 
short hair is considered a disgrace 



9 


by them. If so, they must have 
become accustomed to it, for many 
wear it both in and out of prison. 
But is the clipping of the hair and 
of the queue one and the same 
thing ? it seems so in Supervisors 
Gibbs’ estimation j by the same 
rule, then, the cutting of the hair 
and of the beard are one and the 
same thing, and barbers should so 
understand. Again, is the sorrow 
and disgrace which the Chinaman 
feels in being shorn of his national 
badge the same as that which the 
hoodlum feels, who wears no queue 
and respects no ancient usage ? If 
the latter evidently does not feel 
the same grief and disgrace, then 
his punishment is quite different 
from the Chinaman’s, and the Su¬ 
pervisors have no right to usurp 
judicial powers, and to violate in¬ 
ternational treaties which prohibit 
discrimination among classes of 
different nationalities. But Super¬ 
visor Gibbs may be pardoned for 
holding these views, since they 
formed the ground of the remarka¬ 
ble decision of Judge S. W. Dwindle 
affirming the legality of the muni¬ 
cipal ordinance, the international 
treaty and civil rights law notwith¬ 
standing. 

JOHN H. TOBIN. 

“ Prostitution is not considered 
degrading in China.” Yet ex-min¬ 
ister Low testified that “ prostitu¬ 
tion is regarded as very degrading 
in China.” YVkomare we to believe? 
Considering the authority of ex- 
Governor Low, we must prefer his 
testimony. 

ALEX. BADLAM, ASSESSOR. 

“ The number of the Chinese 
employed in the city make a grand 
total of 30,150, while the number of 
loafers is about 200 or 300.” If the 
Chinese employed (not including 


loafers) are 30,150, how many are 
the unemployed, and what is the 
total Chinese population ? Chief 
Ellis estimated it at 30,000 ; Mayor 
Bryant at between 30,000 and 00,000 
(rather a wide margin) ; Assessor 
Badlam leaves it uncertain. Who 
is right ? Have not our municipal 
officers the city census ? 

“There are in the city,” says 
Assessor Badlam, “ 650 laborers and 
800 restaurant keepers.” The 
Chinese live within six blocks and 
have not probably twenty restau¬ 
rants, including chophouses, in the 
whole quarter ; yet the keepers of 
restaurants number 800, or 150 more 
than the common laborers, notwith¬ 
standing the employed men aggre¬ 
gate to 30,150. Really these figures 
present a problem difficult of solu¬ 
tion even to Assessor Badlam. By 
running over his testimony pre¬ 
sented to the Congressional Com¬ 
mittee, the same puzzle is met with 
at every step. 

“ The real estate assessed to the 
Chinese,” says Badlam, “ falls short 
$160,000, and their personal prop¬ 
erty will amount to $500,000.” 
However, Mr. Bigelow, insurance 
agent, averred that his company 
alone received in premiums from 
the Chinese for one year $40,000, 
and Mr. Babcock, of the firm of 
Parrott & Co., said that “ John 
Parrott did their banking business 
for years, and that the Chinese ex¬ 
pend a million dollars a month in 
round numbers.” The Chinese 
Companies, in their memorial to 
President Grant last May stated 
that their people have purchased 
and now own over $800,000 worth 
of real estate in San Francisco alone, 
and their custom duties amount to 
$2,000,000 annually, and that their 
poll-tax is $200,000 a year. Is it 
not strange that the Chinese should 



10 


enhance the value of their property 
and the Assessor should diminish it? 

CAMERON H. KING, PRESIDENT OF THE 
CENTRAL ANTI-COOLIE CLUB. 

“The Constitution of the anti- 
Chinese Union is thoroughly op¬ 
posed to any act of violence against 
the Chinese.” 

Nevertheless, at the third meet¬ 
ing held by the Twelfth Ward 
anti-coolie Club League, on April 
2, 1876, John Maguire being presi¬ 
dent, and Pat. Lynch Secretary, the 
following resolutions were unani¬ 
mously adopted : 

“Resolved , That realizing the 
menacing attitude which the coolie 
labor assumes toward the manufac¬ 
turing interests of California, and 
believing that the time is not far 
distant when we will have to pro¬ 
tect ourselves by the most efficient 
means, the interests of white labor 
demands that we form ourselves 
into an association, to be known and 
styled the Twelfth Ward Anti-coolie 
League. 

Resolved , That the officers of the 
Association shall consist of a Presi¬ 
dent, Vice-President, Secretary and 
Treasurer ; and that members shall 
assemble at any time and place 
when they shall deem it advisable 
to do so. 

Resolved , That the members of the 
League shall mutually pledge them-, 
selves to the undertaking, and 
sacrifice their lives and property if 
necessary, to the accomplishment 
of the work.” 

Similar restrictions were adopted 
by other clubs. 

Now, what does the pledge “ to 
sacrifice life and property , if necessary 
to the accomplishment of the work ” 
mean, except to have recourse to 
force or violence if the demands of 


the anti-coolies are not complied 
with by Congress, after this their 
last appeal ? It is worthy of note 
that some witnesses testified that 
the anti-coolie League is composed 
chiefly of Irish Eoman Catholics. 

JUDGE BLAKE OF THE MUNICIPAL 
CRIMINAL COURT. 

“ It is very easy to convict a 
Chinaman. He is perfectly helpless, 
he has no friend.” This accounts 
for the large number of Chinamen 
convicted and sent to the State 
Prison, but is it fair and just ? 

MRS. T. HUMPHREYS, A SEAMSTRESS, 
AND T. D. CONDON, A CABINET 
MAKER. 

“There are thousands of seam¬ 
stresses out of work.” There are 
from 10,000 to 12,000 unemployed 
white mechanics in this city ;” said 
Mr. Condon, testifyingto the effects 
of Chinese labor on the wood-work¬ 
ing trades. According to Assessor 
Badlam’s statement the trades in 
which the Chinese are almost en¬ 
tirely engaged in the city are : 
cigar-making, cigar box-making, 
boot, shoe and slipper making ; 
clothing and manufacture of over¬ 
alls, washing and ironing, match¬ 
making, domestic service, fruit 
canning and pickle canning, making 
in all ten or twelve branches of 
industrial labor of the low class. 
Now neither in scientific, literary, 
nor in mechanic skilled labor of the 
higher class, which opens avenues 
to hundreds of different professions, 
as law, medicine, divinity, literature, 
education, music, painting, sculp¬ 
ture,printing, embroidery, millinery, 
etc., etc., do the Chinese intrude. 
And in the public works and build¬ 
ings of the city they are not em¬ 
ployed. Are not, therefore, Mrs. 



11 


Humphrej^’ and Condon’s state¬ 
ments a little too much exaggerated? 
By referring to the testimony of 
Col. Hollister, Messrs. Morgenthau, 
Jessup, Peckbam and others, it will 
be found that white labor is much 
sought for and higher wages are 
offered for it as an inducement ; 
but the truth is, suitable white 
labor cannot be obtained in large 
quantities here. 

MORRIS M. ESTEE, A LAWYER. 

“The Chinese are industrious, 
but barbarous.” However, he ac¬ 
knowledges that the Chinese hasten 
the material development of the 
country,” and says, in contradiction 
of the two preceding witnesses, that 
“ he has employed them because he 
could not get other laborers.” How, 
as the material development of the 
country requires a practical knowl¬ 
edge of both skilled and unskilled 
labor, the Chinese that hasten it 
must undoubtedly possess some 
knowledge of the skilled arts, how 
then can they be called “ barbarous?” 

EX-JUDGE DELOS LAKE OF TIIE MUNICI¬ 
PAL COURT. 

“ In rjiany cases the law protecting 
the Chinese is defeated by popular 
opinion and the press. An individual 
assault might be punished, but not 
a conspiracy or riot, because popular 
opinion would not tolerate it.” This 
frank confession speaks volumes 
regarding the helpless condition of 
the Chinese here, and the necessity 
of Federal protection over them. It 
completely refutes Mayor Bryant 
and Pixley’s assurance that the 
Chinese are well protected by the 
municipal government. 

JUDGE WHEELER. 

“ My objection to the Chinese is, 
that they will not or cannot assimi¬ 


late with us. * * * I think the 

exclusion of any class from the 
right of suffrage, discourages assimi¬ 
lation.” Exactly so, Judge : but 
are the Chinese to blame, or the 
Federal government, if they can 
not assimilate in consequence of 
exclusion from the right of suffrage 
and school education to which they 
are entitled by reason of the school 
tax which they pay in common with 
others? And why should such a lack 
of assimilation be made a charge 
against the Chinese, and not against 
the Government that makes such an 
unjust discrimination between na¬ 
tion and nation ? 

JOHN W. DWINELLE, A LAWYER. 

“ Cheap capital, not cheap labor 
is required in California.” If labor 
is the creator of capital, how can we 
have cheap capital before obtaining 
cheap labor ? Since cheap labor has 
been driven out of the State by this 
senseless crusade against the Chinese, 
which has reduced both Oriental 
and Occidental immigration, we 
have neither cheap labor nor cheap 
capital, and the result is that mil¬ 
lions of acres of mineral and agri¬ 
cultural land lie undeveloped, which, 
with cheap labor, would yield untold 
wealth to the State and nation. All 
the farmers and merchants on the 
Chinese side who better than John 
M. Dwindle, understand the neces¬ 
sity of cheap labor, gave an emphatic 
rebuttal to that preposterous state¬ 
ment.” 

“ It is better that the land shall 
be allowed to remain waste than to 
be wasted by Chinese labor. 

“ I believe in the universal father¬ 
hood of God, and the brotherhood 
of man, but I do not consider the 
Chinaman either as a brother or a 
man.” When an individual makes 
such illogical and absurd assertions, 



12 


and clearly shows his deep bias, it 
is a sensible thing to let him alone. 

HENRY DE GROOT. 

“ If the Chinese were driven out, 
from 2,000 to 3,000 white girls could 
get work.” The principle that un¬ 
derlies this proposition seems to be 
that Chinamen should be driven out 
of employment in order to make 
room for white girls and boys. 
This is indeed a Christian and hu¬ 
manitarian view of the case. Ac¬ 
cording to this excellent doctrine, 
Chinamen have no right to live by 
honest work in a free country, and 
our boys and girls, men and women 
have a better right to their places, 
not because they are more indus¬ 
trious, or more capable, but because 
their skin is white. These persons 
have, it is true, stopped preferring 
such a claim against the negro on 
the ground of color ; but the reason 
is, because the negro has now the 
ballot, and the Chinaman has it not. 
According to this egregious doctrine 
the white race has a monopoly on 


all kinds of labor, whether they can 
perform it well or not, and employ¬ 
ers are not free to employ whomso¬ 
ever they please. In real earnest, 
is this the Centennial era of Ameri¬ 
can freedom and independence, is 
this the land of liberty, the asylum 
of the oppressed ? Pray who are 
they who utter these abominable 
sentiments, who make these most 
outrageous demands ? Strange, yet 
true, they are mostly foreigners 
belonging to an intensely religious 
organization, who but yesterday 
came from a land of despotism, poor, 
ignorant, helpless, and who, without 
any personal merits of theirs, were, 
by the generosity of the American 
people, vested with the rights and 
privileges of citizenship, aud now 
that they are in the country, like 
the dog in Esopp’s fable, who had 
obtained admission into the abode 
—have become so insolent as to 
demand that none other but white 
men shall be received in this country, 
“ the land of the free,” the home of 
the oppressed. 


PART II. 

PRO-CHINESE TESTIMONY SELF-SUPPORTED. 


In following the interrogatory 
propounded by Senator Morton the 
Pro-Chinese witnesses established 
the following facts, which they sup¬ 
ported by circumstantial evidence of 
the first order, We cite the testi¬ 
mony of but a few witnesses, refer¬ 
ring the reader to the full report 
made by the Congressional Com¬ 
mission. But even this brief synop¬ 
sis of the testimony given by 
competent persons ought to be 
sufficient to convince a man of un¬ 
biased mind of the truth, right and 


justice of the Chinese side of the 
question. 

First Fact.— “ The Chinese in 
America are mostly from the prov¬ 
ince of Canton, south of China ; 
sail directly from Hongkong, a 
British port; most of them are 
laborers or farmers. They come to 
this country for the purpose of ac¬ 
quiring a competency in life, with 
their own money or that loaned to 
them by their relations, friends or 
townsmen now in this country or in 
theirs.”— Rev. Otis G-ibson. 






13 


i 


“ The Chinese are a floating pop¬ 
ulation. In the autumn and early 
portion of the Winter, large numbers 
return to China, almost as many as 
come here in the spring.”— Rev. A. 
W. Loomis. [This fact has been 
proved by statistics given by S. F. 
journals.] 

Second Fact. —“ Chinese labor is 
indispensable in this State for the 
rising as well as the gathering of 
crops, whether grain, fruit or vege¬ 
tables.”— Brier & Schenck. “ If wo 
had to rely on white labor, we would 
be compelled to abandon the woolen 
manufactures.” — Air. Peckham. 
“ Without Chinese labor we could 
not compete with the eastern mills.” 
— D. AIcLennan. “ Without it the 
factories would not pay.”— Mr. Alor- 
genthau. 

Third Fact. —“Chinese labor does 
not interfere injuriously with white 
labor in a thousand cases ; as in the 
public works of the city, such as 
grading, paving and repairing 
streets, in public buildings, most of 
which is monopolized by the Irish ; 
nor in many trades, as of house car¬ 
penters, bricklayers, painters, gla¬ 
ziers, plumbers, blacksmiths, foun- 
drymen, printing, bookbinding, tail¬ 
oring ; nor in many commercial 
pursuits, as in banking, insurance, 
European and American commis¬ 
sions, in the learned professions of 
law, medicine and Divinity, in the 
fine and liberal arts of music, draw¬ 
ing and literature, in the public and 
private schools, nor in hundreds oi 
other professions.”— Rev. 0. Gibson, 
C. Crocker, S. Heydenfeldt. “ China¬ 
men are building houses in Dupont 
street with white labor—is that an 
injury ?” — Hyneman. “ Chinese 
labor creates new industries and 
furnishes employment to our skilled 
mechanics.— R. G. Sneath. “When¬ 


ever we can get a white person, 
man, boy, or woman, who can do 
the work of a Chinaman, we are 
always willing to pay $5 more a 
month, we pay white women and 
men 12 to 15 per cent, more than 
Chinamen.”— Mr. Peckham, Presi¬ 
dent San Jose Woolen Mills. “The 
rate of wages for both white and 
Chinese are higher here than in 
New York, while living is less in 
California than in any other part of 
the world ; what can, then, hinder 
white emigration to this State ?”— 
Bee — Gibson. 

Fourth Fact. —Every Chinaman 
in this country is a free laborer. 
House servants and Chinese labor¬ 
ers generally receive their own 
wages, use the money as they please, 
stay or go wherever they please, and 
give up their contracts with their 
employers if they choose, only 
sometimes they forfeit their deposits. 
Gibson. [This fact was attested 
even by an anti Chinese contractor 
and shoe manufacturer of the firm 
of Einstein & Co., and it is one of 
public notoriety. Chinese employ¬ 
ment offices furnish daily evidence 
of it.] 

Fifth Fact. —“ Chinese laborers 
are generally industrious, faithful, 
honest and satisfactory.”— Peckham, 
Col. Hollister, Jessup, Gibson, Loomis. 
“ They work together more har¬ 
moniously than white men.”— Rob¬ 
erts. “They are the best laboring 
class that we have among us.”— 
Judge Heydenfeldt. “They are 
superior to white labor of any other 
nationality.”— W. W. Brier, H. II. 
W. Clark. “ I never observed a case 
of theft among them.”— H. AIcLen¬ 
nan. 

Sixth Fact.— The Chinese have 
been of great benefit to the State 


/ 



14 


and Nation. 

1st.—They have reclaimed 1,000,- 
000 acres of tule land which now 
produces 75 bushels to the acre, and 
have built the trans-continental rail¬ 
road.— Bee, Roberts, C. Crocker, W. 
S. Babcock, Bev. A. W- Loomis , O. 
Gibson, Judge Heydenfeldt. “ The 
establishment of manufactures in 
California is due to the Chinese.”— 
Heydenfeldt, Heynemann, Beckham, 
Colton, Macondray. 

2d.—“ Our commerce with China 
has largely increased in consequence 
of Chinese immigration. Our annual 
exports as shown by statistics are 
very extensive and varied. They 
comprise shells, beans, bags, barley, 
boots, shoes, clocks, firearms, flour, 
wheat, fi*uit, leather, agricultural 
implements, oil, provisions of every 
sort, silver, quicksilver.”— Col. Bee. 
“ Our commerce with China is stead¬ 
ily increasing, especially in cotton 
goods.”— M. A. Olmstead. “ The 
dealing of our firm with Chinese 
merchants amounted in one year to 
$500,000 or $600,000.— Macondray & 
Co. 

3d.— “The Chinese pay taxes to 
support our schools, notwithstanding 
they are denied the use of their 
privileges on account of race preju¬ 
dice.”— Gibson. “ They pay almost 
exclusively the mining tax.”— Kirk¬ 
patrick (formerly Sheriff of Sierra 
County). “ They pay more than 
$1,000,000 annually in rents ; about 
$2,000,000 in Custom duties ; about 
$200,000 for the poll-tax, besides the 
State and city taxes and licenses for 
washing, cigar-making, etc., etc.” 
Gibson. “The Home Mutual In¬ 
surance Company alone, receive 
from the Chinese $40,000 a year.”— 
H. H. Bigelow, agent. “ But if the 
Chinese have not invested to a very 
great extent in real estate, and 


taken much interest in American 
politics, nor have assimilated with 
Americans, it is because many and 
frequent threats have been made to 
drive them away, and much opposi¬ 
tion has been shown them.”— Rev. A. 
W. Loomis, H. K. W. Clark. “ Not¬ 
withstanding the ill treatment the 
Chinese receive, many of them be¬ 
come so attached to this country 
that, after returning once to China', 
come back again to live and die here.” 
— Rev. O. Gibson. 

Seventh Fact. —The Chinese in 
general are a law abiding people, in¬ 
dustrious,honest and reliable in busi¬ 
ness. “ They are law-abiding as 
much as any other class of foreign¬ 
ers.” — Gtbson, Vernon Seaman. 
“ The argument from the prison 
statistics in which a comparison is 
made between the Chinese and 
whites is not fair.”— Gibson, “ The 
Chinese are honest and reliable in 
commercial and business transac¬ 
tions.”— J. A. Coolidge, Secretary 
Merchants’ Exchange, Judge Hey¬ 
denfeldt,. “ As unexceptionably 
honorable, the Chinese merchants 
surpass even our own merchants. 
Their promptitude is remarkable ; 
never had any law-suits or difficulty 
in making adjustments.”— C. V. S. 
Gib h s, Adjuster of marine losses. 
“ Have done a business of several 
millions with the Chinese and have 
never lost a dollar.”— Beckham, Ma¬ 
condray, Babcock. “ The contracts 
made with the Chinese are verbal.” 
— Macondary. “ There are Chinese 
merchants in this city who have not 
$2,000 worth of property visible to 
me, that I would credit to the ex¬ 
tent of $20,000.”— Beckham. 

Eighth Fact. —“The Chinese 
are, as a rule, healthy and clean. 
The Chinese are the most cleanly 



15 


laborers I ever saw. They bathe 
themselves every day from head to 
foot.”— W- S. Babcock. “We have 
no more healthy class among ns 
than the Chinese.”— Gibson. “As 
a general thing, the health of the 
Chinese is better than that of the 
whites, because they live plainer. 
They keep themselves very clean ; 
they wash themselves very often. 
The death rate is less among the 
Chinese than among the whites.” 
Dr. A. B. Stout member of the 
State Board of Health. 

Ninth Fact. —“ The Chinese are 
fast acquiring our education. Sev¬ 
eral of them are now studying in 
Eastern colleges. Many are learn¬ 
ing the English language here ; 750 
of them generally attend tho even¬ 
ing Mission schools. Together with 
i the private classes in the city and 
State, the roll-call of learners who 
attend school is about 2,500, and 
3,000 if Sabbath schools are included, 
but the majority of the Chinese 
learn our language in the houses, 
stores and buildings where they are 
employed.”— Bev. O. Gibson, A. W. 
Loomis. “ The general intelligence 
and ready perception of the Chinese 
are superior to those among the la¬ 
boring classes of whites.”— Judge 
Heydenfeldt. “ The Chinese are the 
most powerful imitators I ever saw. 
They have the power of committing; 
they quickly learn the gauge of work 
expected from them.”— Peckham. 

Tenth Fact. —“ The work of 
Christianizing the Chinese, which 
was slow at first, is now progressing 
fast. The number of Christianized 
Chinese in California comes up 
nearly to one thousand.”— Bev. O. 
Gibson , Bev. D. Leal , Bev. A. W. 
Loomis , Bev. John Francis. This 
number, considering the evil exam¬ 
ple of vice and unchristian persecu¬ 


tion, countenanced by civil and even 
ecclesiastical authorities with su¬ 
preme indifference, does indeed 
challenge admiration, and is the best 
evidence of a superior power that 
works within their souls. For, 
according to human instinct, a feel¬ 
ing of abhorrence is naturally raised 
in man’s heart against a religion 
that seems to have no influence in' 
restraining its followers from evil 
and cruel deeds. 

Eleventh Fact. —“ There are six 
companies in San Francisco .which 
represent the principal places in 
China whence the Chinese come, 
also several societies, or guilds, or 
unions, representing different trades 
or pursuits. These six companies 
are purely voluntary associations 
for mutual protection and benefit, 
and though they are often called 
upon to decide and adjust personal 
differences, they neither claim nor 
exercise any judicial authority, nor 
inflict any punishment.— Bev. O. 
Gibson , 

Twelfth Fact. —“All the wo¬ 
men who have arrived in San Fran¬ 
cisco since the Page law was passed, 
were respectable at the time of their 
arrival, they having certificates in 
due form from the United States 
Consul at Honkgong, attesting their 
free condition and good moral char¬ 
acter.”— G. H. Gray , Surveyor of 
Customs, San Francisco. “The 
charge brought against the Chinese 
women, that some or a large num¬ 
ber of them are prostitutes, may be 
urged with equal or greater force 
against some white women of all 
nationalities, and, if true, that they 
demoralize our boys ; it is a sad 
comment upon our boasted superior¬ 
ity, upon the parents of the boys, 
and upon our Municipal authorities.” 
— Gibson. 




/ 


16 


Thirteenth Fact. —“The Chinese 
are oppresed by special laws, both 
State and Municipal, such as the 
cubic air, the queue-cutting* ordi¬ 
nances, and the fish net law ; they 
are attacked in the streets, beaten, 
stoned, and sometimes murdered by 
white ruffians with impunity, re¬ 
ceiving little or no protection from 
the Municipal authorittes.”— Col. 
Bee, Bev. A. W . Loomis, H. K. TV- 
Clark. 

Fourteenth Fact. —“ The Anti- 
Chinese agitation is periodical in 
character and political in purpose, 
breaking out with violence before 
and subsiding after general elec¬ 
tions.”— Bee, Gibson, C. Crocker. 
“ The persecution against the Chi¬ 
nese is the result of ignorance.”--!?. 
H. Clark. “ Nearly all of the oppo¬ 
nents to Chinese immigration are 
Irish Roman Catholics.”-- B. S. 
Brooks. 

CHARACTER OF THE PRO-CHINESE TES¬ 
TIMONY. 

A close observer cannot fail to see 
that the witnesses who offered testi¬ 
mony in rebuttal before the Congres¬ 
sional Commission are all men of un¬ 
impeachable integrity, highly re¬ 
spected in society, and occupying a 
position which enabled them to speak 
of the subject under discussion from 
personal observation, not of one or two 
years, but ten, twenty or more. 

Ministers of the Gospel and Mis¬ 
sionaries testified, who better than 
any other person are familiar with 
Chinese habits and character, their 
sacred profession bringing them into 
close contact with the latter. Some 
of these, like Drs. Gibson and Loomis, 
have resided in China for many 
years, and have had the best facilities 
for learning the habits and customs 


of the Chinese, both personal and 
social. They do not only understand, 
but speak fluently the Chinese lan¬ 
guage, thus having a means for ob¬ 
taining information in regard to many 
points connected with the Chinese 
question which none of the other wit¬ 
nesses against the Chinese ever had 
or has. The testimony of eye and 
ear witnesses of this kind, whose sa¬ 
cred profession is a sort of guarantee 
against prevarication, should be re¬ 
garded as unexceptionable. 

Again, the testimony of the pro- 
Chinese witnesses is not, like the 
other, a mass of allegations almost en¬ 
tirely destitute of circumstantial 
proof. They speak of facts that came 
within their own observation in their 
own sphere of life, not once or twice, 
but for a number of years reaching 
ten and twenty. Wonderful, yet 
true ; in so long a period, of time they 
attest, for instance, that they have 
never found Chinese merchants dis¬ 
honest in a single instance, nor the 
laborers at any time less industrious 
and faithful. A homogeneous testi¬ 
mony, based upon many years’ exper¬ 
ience, relating to matters with which 
the witnesses are perfectly familiar, 
possesses in all cases a more than or¬ 
dinary force. But if not one, but 
several witnesses of unimpeached 
integrity, concur in the same, then it 
becomes and cannot fail to be irresist¬ 
ible and carry conviction. Allowing 
to the opposition honesty of purpose 
and dignity of character, it is certain 

that their testimonv is in the main 

%/ 

inconsistent, self-contradicting and 
frequently untrue and absurd on its 
face, as appears from the critical an¬ 
alysis above given, 



17 


Here, then, the Chinese case might 
as well rest, leaving it to the calm and 
impartial judgment of American peo¬ 
ple and Congress, doubting not for 
a moment of the nature of their ver¬ 
dict. But as it is proposed by the 
opposition to argue the case ere¬ 
long before the National Congress, 
and ask, if not an absolute pro¬ 


hibition, a restriction at least of 
Chinese immigration, in accordance 
with Senator Sargent’s resolution 
offered last year, we will here below 
offer some reasons why their request 
should not be granted, after briefly 
commenting on Senator Sargent’s 
Majority Report to Congress. 


PART HI. 

REVIEW OF SENATOR SARGENT’S MAJORITY REPORT 

OF THE CHINESE COMMISSION. 


The report begins by saying that 
“ the conclusions to be drawn from 
the mass of testimony may be differ¬ 
ent to different minds” This is an 
^ admission that a fair diversity of 
opinion may exist on the Chinese 
question, that both sides are well 
maintained ; and if so, what right, 
may be asked, have the anti-Chinese 
to demand from Congress a verdict in 
their favor either prohibiting or re¬ 
stricting Chinese immigration ? But 
there will be no difference of opinion 
if the conclusions are faithfully and 
logically drawn from true premises, if 
not singular but general cases are 
considered, if the character, compe¬ 
tency and number of the witnesses are 
taken into consideration and more par¬ 
ticularly if the circumstantial evidence 
of the testimony is looked into ; upon 
these points the pro-Chinese testi¬ 
mony is far superior to the anti-Chi¬ 
nese and must have a great weight 
upon all fair and unbiased minds. 

“ In the opinion of the Commission 
it may be said,” continues the report, 
“ that the resources of California and 


the Pacific Coast have been more rap¬ 
idly developed with the cheap and do¬ 
cile labor of the Chinese than they 
would have been without this element . 
So it cannot be doubted that the Pa¬ 
cific Coast has been a great gainer.” 
This frank avowal by Senator Sargent 
settles the question as to the benefi¬ 
cial effects of Chinese immigration 
upon the material interests of the 
country. It follows that upon this 
score it is unjust to ask Congress 
either to prohibit or restrict it. Upon 
what grounds then are the Chinese to 
be excluded ? 

Here is where the report is not 
very clear. It speaks of some u so¬ 
cial and moral evils that are springing 
from the emigration which in the future 
would counter-balance the advantages 
gained by the rapid production of 
wealth,” without pointing out any one 
in particular. This is a very import¬ 
ant omission, and still worse, so gen¬ 
eral an allegation is not sustained even 
by the anti-Chinese testimony. For 
instance, Alfred Clarke, clerk of the 
Chief of Police, testified on the anti- 
2 





18 


Chinese side, that “ prostitution, vio¬ 
lation of the cubic air ordinance and 
gambling are the principal offenses for 
which arrests are made among the 
Chinese,” but prostitution and gam¬ 
bling are no more common among the 
Chinese than among white people, 
and if these offenses do not counter¬ 
balance the rapid production of wealth 
in the latter instance, why should 
they do it in the former ? On this 
score both white and Chinese emigra¬ 
tion should be prohibited or restricted. 

The question therefore reverts upon 
what grounds are the Chinese to be 
excluded ? “ On the ground ,” says 

the report, “ that hard experience has 
shown that the laboring men are by the 
influx of the Chinese thrown out of 
employment and the means of decent 
livelihood are more difficult of acqui¬ 
sition .” 

This objection has been effectually 
and completely refuted, first, by the 
counter-testimony of several capital¬ 
ists who employ both white and Chi¬ 
nese labor, like Mr. Peckham, Presi¬ 
dent San Jose Woolen Mills, who at¬ 
tested that all things being equal they 
prefer and even offer higher wages for 
white than Asiatic labor. Second , by 
the fact patent to all that there are 
hundreds of avocations in life, trades 
and professions, in which the Chinese 
are not engaged. Third, that even 
in the field of purely mechanical 
labor where most of them take part 
the Chinese cannot frequently under¬ 
bid white labor by reason of the me¬ 
chanical powers it employs which the 
Chinaman is unable to obtain. Fourth , 
by the fact that the wages of labor 
whether white or Chinese are higher 
in California than in the Eastern 


States, while the cost of living is less 
here, as testified by Colonel Pee and 
others. To assert that men willing to 
work cannot find employment and 
earn means of decent livelihood in 
the land of gold and silver, famous 
for fertility of soil and salubrity of 
climate, where millions of acres are f 
yet unbroken by the plough and 
thousands of mines are undeveloped, 
is so gross an exaggeration that even 
simpletons will not believe it! And 
if having the power to earn a decent 
livelihood whether men or women, 
young or old, laborers do not make use 
of it,' but crowd the cities instead of 
seeking employment in the country, 
are the Chinese to blame for it ? Is 
there any sense and justice in such a 
charge ? 

The complaint therefore, made by 
Senator Sargent before the national 
Congress, that “ there is a lack of 
employment for whites and young 
men who are growing up in idleness , 
while young women willing to work 
are compelled to resort to doubtful 
means of support ,” even if true, is 
not pertinent in this case, for the sim¬ 
ple reason, that the Chinese are not 
responsible for the deplorable condi¬ 
tion of the white males and females 
on account of cheap labor any more 
then the white laboring men who are 
free to work upon terms suitable to 
themselves and who can by the use of 
machines under-bid others who work 
by hand. Has then this great free 
country come to this, that labor and 
capital are no longer free? or that white 
labor is free, but Chinese labor is not ? 

Or that in free America the European 
and African have the right “ to live 
and let live,” but the Chinaman has 



it not ? Who are the authors of 
these monstrous doctrines ? Did the 
great framers of the American Inde¬ 
pendence ever teach them ? No, they 
are of foreign origin and late importa¬ 
tion. 

Strange yet true, men who but a 
few years ago came to this country, 
poor pilgrims from a land of despot¬ 
ism, without any right or claim upon 
the American government except that 
which springs from generosity, and 
who were admitted without any mer¬ 
its of theirs to the participation of 
the rights and privileges of American 
citizenship, have within a short time 
become so insolent that they consider 
themselves masters, and have the im¬ 
pudence to demand from the national 
Congress a law of prohibition or re¬ 
striction to Chinese immigration! 
They carry their insolence so far as 
to make public threats of taking the 
matter in their own hands, if Congress 
should not soon accede to their de¬ 
mand, hence Senator Sargent does 
not hesitate in his report to make 
this extraordinary intimation : “ As 

long as there is a reasonable hope 
that Congress will apply a remedy 
for what is considered a great and 
growing evil (Chinese immigration) 
violent measures against the Chinese 
can be restrained.' 1 '’ It is thus that 
an American Congress is bullied by 
threat, it is thus that the dignity and 
power of the American people is defi¬ 
antly insulted! A petition accom¬ 
panied by a threat! A case submit¬ 
ted for decision with a peremptory 
demand of judgment in favor of 
plaintiff! What supreme arrogance! 
Will Congress grant an unjust de¬ 
mand coupled with insult ? Senator 


Sargent made a fatal mistake or un¬ 
wisely listened to evil counsels when 
he put that threat in his report. 

It is not necessary, as he declares, 
to give the ballot to the Chinese, or to 
discourage their large influx in order 
to protect them from the threatened 
violence of evil-minded men, or from 
the injustice of local laws and tribu¬ 
nals. It is sufficient if unjust enact¬ 
ments, such as the queue-cutting and 
cubic-air ordinances, which oppress 
the Chinese alone, and are antagonis¬ 
tic to our treaty with China, are de¬ 
clared null and void by our Federal 
Courts, and the perpetrators of out¬ 
rages against the Chinese are pun¬ 
ished by them in default of action by 
the local government. The United 
States government having stipulated 
with China to protect Chinese sub¬ 
jects in this country, must fulfill its 
sacred obligation. To repeal or mod¬ 
ify the treaty, because of inability to 
protect them, is a confession of weak¬ 
ness which will dishonor the nation 
before the world. Senator Sargent 
will not, we are sure, demand from 
the government a disgraceful act. 

The Honorable Senator lays great 
stress on the fact that the Chinese do 
not amalgamate and assimilate with 
us, and are altogether a heterogeneous 
element of population. This reason 
might have some force if the Chinese 
were to become citizens, but this priv¬ 
ilege is denied to them by treaty, and 
being only temporary residents among 
us, the necessity of assimilation is not 
apparent. But are the Chinese at 
fault for not assimilating and amal¬ 
gamating with us when they are so 
inhumanly treated, and public instruc¬ 
tion is denied to them, notwithstanding 



20 


they pay their proportion of the school 
tax ? If Senator Sargent is sincere 
in his desire of Chinese amalgamation 
and assimilation let him use his influ¬ 
ence to stop the persecution now 
waged against them, and to procure 
them admission into the public schools, 


and we pledge to him a rapid amalga¬ 
mation and assimilation of the Chi¬ 
nese with the white race. Senator 
Sargent’s report lacks sincerity in 
more than one instance, and for this 
reason, it is feared, it will not carry 
conviction. 


CONCLUSION. 


AN APPEAL TO THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE AND CONGRESS. 

Why should Chinese Immigration be 
Restricted ? 

By the analysis we have made of 
the Anti-Chinese testimony, it is 
clearly shown that the accusations 
made against the Chinese are either 
untrue or greatly exaggerated. Their 
total number in America, according to 
Custom-House statistics and the esti¬ 
mates made by Rev. Otis Gibson,* is 
set down at one hundred and fifty 
thousand, as against forty millions, the 
present population of the United 
States; and in California it has reached 
sixty thousand, or one-twelfth of the 
population of the entire State. The 
following statement regarding the 
number of Chinese in America, was 
obtained by the State Senate Sub- 
Committee on Chinese investigation 
from the presidents of the six Com¬ 
panies, in May, 1876. 


Sam Yup Company.10,100 

Young Wo Company.10,200 

Kong Chow Company.15,000 

Ning Young Company. 75,000 

Hop Wo Company. 34,000 

Yan Wo Company. 4,300 


“ They estimated that there were 
30,000 in San Francisco, and 30,000 
in the State,outside of San Francisco.” 
—S. F. Bulletin, April 20th, 1876. 

Further, we append the statistics 
furnished to us by the Presidents of 
the six companies, comprising- the ar¬ 
rivals to and departures from this 
coast by the Chinese since 1873 to 
April, 1876, which are as follows : 

SAM YUP COMPANY. 

Year. Arrived. Departed 

1873 . 755 520 

1874 . 842 495 

1875 . 878 574 

1876 up to April.. . 172 120 

KONG CHOW COMPANY. 

1873. 1,290 888 

1874.. ... 1,510 914 

1875.. ..r. 1,655 712 

1876 up to April... . 680 91 

YOUNG WO COMPANY. 

1873 ... 943 694 

1874 . 760 825 

1875 ... . 1,430 670 

1876 up to April. .. . 360 83 

NING YOUNG COMPANY. 

1873 . 5,621 2,738 

1874 . 5,748 2,892 

1875 .5,520 2,760 

1876 up to April. ... 1,700 432 


Total.148,600 

-* “The Chinese in America,” by Rev. O. Gibson, A. M.—Hitchcock & Walden, Cincinnati, O. 




























21 


V 




i 


HOP WO COMPANY. 


Year. Arrived. Departed. 

1873 .2,600 1,100 

1874 . 3,100 1,400 

1875 .3,200 1,500 

1876 up to April.... 800 150 

YAN WO COMPANY. 

1873 . 540 260 

1874 . 560 240 

1875 . 480 210 


1876 up to April. ... 150 28 

From which we gather that the ar¬ 
rivals of Chinese in 1873 were 11,749, 
and the departures 6,200. In 1874, 
the arrivals were-12,520, and the de¬ 
partures 6,766. In 1875, the arriv¬ 
als were 13,163, and the departures 
6,426, and in 1876, up to and includ¬ 
ing a part of April, the arrivals were 
3,862, and the departures 904, which 
figures being added together give a 
grand total in three years and a quar¬ 
ter, of arrivals 41,294, and of depart¬ 
ures, 20,296, leaving an excess of ar¬ 
rivals over departures of 20,998, 
which shows the ratio of their increase 
in three years and a quarter. 

As Rev. Mr. Loomis and others 
testified before the Congressional 
Commission, the departures of Chinese 
in the Fall and commencement of 
Winter nearly equal the arrivals of 
them in the Spring. 

The “ Alta California,” of June 8th, 
1873, showed by statistics that the 
net total gain of Chinese arrivals 
over departures was then about 3,678 
per annum. Now it is claimed that 
the gain is between 15 and 20,000 per 
annum, which is not the case ac¬ 
cording to the above statistics. But, 
suppose the excess of arrivals over de¬ 
partures should reach 50,000 yearly ; 


how long will it take, at that rate, for 
the Chinese population to number five 
millions, or one eighth of the present 
population of the United States ? 
Just one hundred years. The Chi¬ 
nese immigration to this coast comes 
only by sea, three or four times 
a month. “The white population,” 
remarks the “ Alta ” in the issue 
above mentioned, “ increases by immi¬ 
gration by land and sea about 25,000 
annually, [the increase is much greater 
now] and by births as much more, so 
that the prospect of our being con¬ 
verted into a tributary colony of 
China is not very encouraging.” 

It has been proven by unimpeacha¬ 
ble evidence that Chinese labor does 
not and cannot prevent white immi¬ 
gration ; that it is not detrimental, 
but on the contrary, beneficial and 
indispensable to the State, without 
which our agricultural and commer¬ 
cial interests would suffer, and our 
industrial manufactories could not be 
permanently established ; and that it is 
to Chinese labor that the State is in¬ 
debted, in a great measure, for its 
present prosperity and development, 
particularly for the great Trans-Con¬ 
tinental Railroad. Such being the 
facts, why, we ask, should Chinese 
immigration be restricted, which is 
prolific of so many blessings, and 
which, as in the past, so in the future, 
will give us an abundance of cheap 
labor which is indispensable to a State 
like ours, the native wealth of which 
is inexhaustible, and lies, as yet, en¬ 
tombed or undeveloped in the earth ? 
No more suicidal policy for this State 
and Nation can be imagined than to 
cut off from us the source of cheap 
labor which is the creator of capital, 










and the only hope of our material 
progress. 

The Chinese are not, as it is 
charged, a band of criminals and vi¬ 
cious, but on the contrary, a very la¬ 
borious, frugal, quiet, and law-abiding 
people. There are no bummers among 
them, nor drunkards, nor bull-dosers, 
but with rare exceptions. The testi¬ 
mony of Alfred Clarke, Clerk of the 
Chief of Police, (an anti-Chinese wit¬ 
ness) is very conclusive in this respect. 
“ Prostitution, violation of the cubic 
air ordinance and gambling are the 
principal offenses for which arrests are 
made among the Chinese.” But pros¬ 
titution among the Chinese is no more 
common than among the other nation¬ 
alities, as any person who takes a 
stroll through Dupont, Sacramento, 
and other streets of San Francisco, 
either by day or night, can soon dis¬ 
cover. The municipal authorities, 
however, have deemed best to punish 
the Chinese alone for the infraction of 
the law. 

The Chinese are fast learning both 
our language and customs, notwith¬ 
standing they are slow in adopting 
them. But why should they adopt 
them when they see so much bad ex¬ 
ample continually spread before their 
eyes, of dishonesty, drunkenness, and 
inhuman persecution against them, for 
no other reason except because they 
earn a morsel of bread by prolonged 
toil, day and night, which those who 
boast of belonging to the superior race 
would fain take from their mouths and 
give to their white families ? What 
right have they who set such barbar¬ 
ous and unchristian examples in this 
age of freedom and equal rights, to 
demand social assimilation from the 


Chinese ? Do we, ourselves, wish to 
assimilate with any people whose prac¬ 
tices and doctrines we condemn ? If 
the Chinese are slow in adopting our 
civilization and Christian religion, not 
they, but the anti-Chinese crusaders 
themselves should bear the blame. 
And for them to appeal to Congress 
and the American people, and ask the 
restriction of Chinese immigration, on 
the ground that they do not assimilate 
with us, is the climax of impudence ! 

These men are constantly clam¬ 
oring against the Chinese immigra¬ 
tion, yet complain because they do 
not as other immigrants come here 
to stay and do not conform with 
our habits and manners. What 
charming consistency ! 

However, as this allegation is likely 
to constitute the main ground for urg¬ 
ing a restriction of Chinese immigra¬ 
tion, before yielding to its weight, may 
we be permitted to inquire into the 
main and perhaps the only real cause 
of this want of social homogeneity on 
the part of the Chinese as well as of 
other foreigners, in order to see 
whether the blame attaches to them 
or to our civil government. 

A tour of observation through the 
different colonies settled in our large 
cities, will disclose the fact that where 
a considerable number of people of 
foreign nationality form as it were a 
separate community, it is because they 
have not a sufficient knowledge of the 
English language. The necessity of 
a common medium of social inter¬ 
course which is afforded by their 
native tongue draws them together, 
and by their numbers they find ample 
supply among themselves for all their 
wants. “ Any foreigner,” says a 






23 


writer, speaking of German colonists in 
the Eastern States, “who would spend 
a few days traveling through our 
larger cities for the purpose of mak¬ 
ing a study of our population, would 
find two nationalities growing up side 
by side, and it would not require 
many years further observation to 
show him that they were much more 

t/ 

rapidly growing than commingling.” 
This fact we observe here among the 
Italians, Portuguese and other foreign 
colonies. 

The remedy universally adopted for 
conquering this aversion of certain 
foreigners to amalgamation and ob¬ 
taining a homogeneous nationality is 
to impart a free, and if necessary, ob¬ 
ligatory education , particularly in the 
English language , to all the children 
of the people. 

The same theory applies to the case 
of the Chinese now under discussion, 
but with greater force. They too are 
compelled to live together as a sepa¬ 
rate people, chiefly because the great 
majority of them ignore the English 
language. But are they to blame for 
this lack of knowledge and want of 
assimilation ? “ They evince an eager¬ 
ness for learning,” says Dr. Loomis 
in his school report, “which is especial¬ 
ly commented upon by strangers.” 
They pay their pro-rata of the taxes 
for the support of public schools ; but 
our benevolent, equitable and just civil 
government persistently refuses to 
grant admission to Chinese children 
into the public schools through preju¬ 
dice and antipathy of race. And 
after suffering so great a wrong from 
the State and the Municipal Govern¬ 


ment, in violation of our treaty stipu¬ 
lations, shall the Chinese be subjected 
to a still greater wrong by way of 
punishment from the Federal Govern¬ 
ment, restricting their immigration on 
account of the lack of assimilation of 
which they are not the cause ? Aye, 
the sense of right and justice is not 
yet dead in the American people and 
Congress! 

These and other charges being dis¬ 
proved by fact and reason, why should 
Congress restrict Chinese immigration 
any more than that of any other na¬ 
tionality? Would not such a dis¬ 
crimination be a gross insult to the 
Chinese people and Government ? 
Would it not be an act of flagrant 
injustice which would challenge the 
condemnation of the whole civilized 
world ? What a sport would mon¬ 
archical countries make of our boasted 
freedom, human equality, and inde¬ 
pendence ! How w'ould the enemies 
of popular government in our midst, 
who are constantly plotting its de¬ 
struction, rejoice secretly in their 
hearts over this first departure from 
our national policy, successfully fol¬ 
lowed by us for one hundred years— 
“ to make no discrimination between 
nations”—they would regard it as 
the first retrograde step in our career 
of liberty and civilization, as a tacit 
denial of one of the cardinal princi¬ 
ples of the immortal Declaration of our 
independence, as the turning point of 
the great revolution of ideas wrought 
in this century by the United States 
of America. Let us fondly hope and 
pray that Congress will never consent 
to thus fatally stab our nation ! 





II 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



. 


















r 

. ' ' L .. (A > ' 



































